Community Rights to Buy: consultation analysis

3.2 Community body structures

Q3: Do you support the Scottish Government recommendation that the residence and voting eligibility requirement is reduced to being anything over 50% of the community?

This question firstly invited respondents to choose from Yes/No/Unsure.

The accompanying free text box also invited comments on the following basis: “What ratio of ordinary members should be required of a community body to ensure that control of community-owned assets remains with local members of the community?”

There was a total of 53 standard responses to this question with 50 respondents selecting a voting option and 45 providing additional comments in the free text box.

Regarding the voting options, the breakdown was as follows:

Summary

The majority of respondents favoured reducing the residence requirements to over 50% of members being resident in the community (from the current 75%). The main reasons cited were around difficulties in getting enough participation, especially in more remote areas.

Those who did not favour a decrease focussed on the need to demonstrate strong support within the local community.

Themes

Respondents expanded on their voting choices as follows:

A majority of respondents supported the proposition that the residence and voting eligibility requirements as set out in the question should be reduced and these respondents tended to agree that a figure closer to 50% was preferable, with some adding a simple majority is acceptable.

However, others favoured a figure closer to 60-65% to ensure that it is a community decision and that community cohesion is maintained and, at the other end of scale, some respondents favoured a figure between 10-25%.

“Reducing the eligibility requirement to 50.1% would be particularly helpful in urban areas, where demographics are highly complex.” (Individual respondent)

“We support reducing the residence and voting eligibility requirement to anything over 50%. This would encourage more participation in the life of the community body, without impacting the strength of local democratic accountability.” (Community Land Scotland)

Some respondents disagreed with the proposition and instead felt that the requirements should be raised, citing figures of 80-90%.

No change: Some respondents felt the requirements should be left unchanged as the current 75% threshold demonstrates community support and cohesion, and in the long term supports the viability of the community’s buyout of the asset.

“We believe that maintaining the current levels of community support is reasonable and proportionate and helps to ensure the viability of the community buyout and as well as the possibility of a high level of harmony within the community” (Scottish Land and Estates)

It was also suggested that consideration be given to different requirements for urban and rural environments as it can be particularly challenging to define and build support for an asset located in an urban setting.

“This is currently set at 75% and is easier to achieve in rural communities while more difficult for some urban areas. Perhaps differential rates could be set for each – maybe two thirds in rural areas and 51%+ in urban situations.” (Sleat Community Trust)

Q4: Should the ratio of members required to attend be amended from the current 10%?

This question firstly invited respondents to choose from Yes/No/Unsure.

The accompanying free text box also invited comments on the following basis: “If so, what proportion do you think would still ensure that the local community is fairly represented at general meetings of the company?”

There was a total of 50 standard responses to this question with 47 respondents selecting a voting option and 36 providing additional comments in the free text box.

Regarding the voting options, the breakdown was as follows:

Summary

There was no clear opinion on the question, although a few respondents noted that attendance at AGMs is not an indication (or, not the best or only indication) of community support, whilst others felt that high attendance at an AGM should nevertheless be required to show support.

Themes

Respondents expanded on their voting choice as follows:

Amongst those who voted “yes” to an increase from the current 10% figure, it was common to propose a figure of around 25% although 20%, 30% and 50% were also proposed. It was also remarked that the usual rules relating to ordinary members and office holders be respected here too. Overall, reasons for an increase included a need to ensure legitimacy and credibility.

Selected comments included:

“Given the sparsely populated identity in many rural areas the attendance at AGMs needs to be significantly higher than 10%. If the threshold is lower, then there is a considerable risk that member approval is as little as 5% which has extremely negative connotations for legitimacy and credibility.” (Individual respondent)

“We recommend 20–25% to better reflect meaningful engagement, whilst allowing flexibility for smaller rural communities.” (Dumfries and Galloway Council)

Amongst those who support a change there were several comments that the threshold should be lowered, with 5% being a figure frequently cited. Reasons given focussed mainly on the challenges of getting members to attend general meetings, particularly if matters are progressing well or communication with them has been good, as members are then often content not to attend the meetings themselves. It was suggested that the use of online tools could be a useful means of supporting more people to attend and to meet any requirements.

“We would support this being reduced to 5% for AGMs. Low attendance at an AGM is often an indication of things going well – not a sign of a lack of democracy or issues” (Community Land Scotland)

There were several comments that there should be no change, albeit for differing reasons.

There were concerns that an increase would make it too difficult for groups to move forward and that it was an unnecessary burden as attendance at general meetings is not the sole indicator of support for a group, particularly if unforeseeable and unrelated circumstances prevented attendance such as illness, childcare difficulties or transport problems.

“We do not support an increase from the current 10% attendance threshold. While community engagement and participation are vital, attendance at general meetings is not the sole indicator of either.” (Highlands and Islands Enterprise)

Some added the caveat that the threshold should remain the same but that there should also be a requirement for a minimum number of attendees with 10 or 20 members being suggested as options (the current legislation requires the greater of 10% or 8 members).

Amongst those unsure there was a sense that variation between rural and urban setting may be appropriate but also that flexibility should be taken into account for other reasons as well, such as manipulation of community sizes (or at least the accusation of it) as well as challenges to in-person attendance such as time and cost. A simple percentage figure may therefore not always be the best way of achieving the goals of this requirement.